Olivier wrote: > I was told yesterday (by Cantata guy) that T.38 demands a good level > of QoS. > That surprised me a lot as I thought the whole purpose of T.38 was to > avoid SIP and ToIP latency. T.37 is the answer to reliability, but most people don't want to use it for totally stupid reasons. T.38 is a fudge to make real time FAX over IP less flaky. It isn't all that robust, it just isn't as awful as FAX over VoIP. > > Another editor (Interstar) told me T.38 passthrough doesn't work. That's not true. As long as the passthrough has fairly low latency (and, of course, a solid reliable implementation), it shouldn't impact the results. > > As devil lies in details and I couldn't get any, I'm not sure these > words would be of any use. In a sane world all FAX would have been T.37 from a few months after that spec was released. :-)
Steve _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
